Philosophy discussion

Is it useful or meaningful to divide philosophy into "Western" and "Eastern" philosophy? Or, as I would argue, is this bifurcation of philosophical thought misleading, arbitrary, and provincial?

there is the contention western philosophy is always, somehow, concerned with 'being': eastern philosophy with 'emptiness' ,so this divide is real, not parochial, and Nishida (Japanese philosopher) contends Nishida and Western Philosophy that they cannot be ultimately reconciled because western thought does not accept paradox...

Lumping ancient Greek philosophy, scholastic Christian philosophy, and modern European philosophy, in its various contentious branches, all together in one category, and all the multifarious schools of, for example, Chinese and Indian philosophy, in another category, does seem arbitrary to me. And what of Islamic philosophy? How would you classify it? What of ancient Egyptian philosophy? Or pre-Islamic Persian philosophy? Or Mayan philosophy?

Is western philosophy always concerned with being? Didn't Heidegger contend that the concept of "being" was precisely what western philosophy had lost?

Seems perfectly okay to me. And just because there's a lot of irrelevant books lying around doesn't mean they lend themselves to active scholarship.

Mayan 'philosophy'? Rather call it a dead religion, superseded by advancements in logic and rationality. We can't redraw the arrangement of western universities based on pseudoscience or mysticism.

It really doesn't matter how many offshoots or branches an Eastern folk-wisdom has. In the west, the study of folk-lore still falls under literature, comparative religion, or anthropology.

Skallagrimsen wrote: "Is it useful or meaningful to divide philosophy into "Western" and "Eastern" philosophy? Or, as I would argue, is this bifurcation of philosophical thought misleading, arbitrary, and provincial?"

The reason why political division even exists is because of this sorting.

@Feliks: Is your claim that only the west developed philosophy?

I agree with Skallagrimsen, the human race has been human for at least 250,000 years, but our knowledge of our written philosophy is only around 2,500 years old, that’s 1% of our time on Earth. I would imagine that people have been philosophizing ever since we first looked up at the stars, so there are, and must of have been, many systems of philosophy.

Yes, it is somewhat arbitrary to subdivide things, and this can be misleading, and contentious. Richard Dawkins called this the ‘tyranny of the discontinuous mind’, we instinctively characterize things into groups and subgroups. On the other hand, what other option do we have; also, it is very useful for communication. Having said that, we should (as Skallagrimsen suggests) acknowledge that this is what we are doing.

@Stephen, Concepts no less than physical objects are linguistic conveniences, with necessarily blurry borders. As you say, we must draw boundaries and distinctions to communicate, but we do so at the risk of misleading ourselves about the nature of reality. I don't think there's likely a solution to this problem. But it can, I hope, at least be alleviated by better taxonomies; taxonomies that do more justice to the variety and complexity of the world. "Eastern and western philosophy" does not, to me, seem like a sufficient or useful taxonomy. It strikes me more like lazy dualism.

Hi Skallagrimsen,
I would agree that the term 'Eastern philosophy' is very loose, and so the dualism here is perhaps lazy. However, if we ignore the dualism, I think the term 'Western philosophy' can be justified by itself if one is talking about the development of ideas from Plato and Aristotle through Locke, Hume, Kant, Husserl, Heidegger, Russell, Sartre, Ayer, Dennett, Rorty etc. Looking at say how later ideas built on earlier ones. To use that term here I think would be readily understood by others, as in, for example, Russell's great book "A History of Western Philosophy'.
Creating the dualism by grouping everything else as 'Eastern' is, I agree, misleading re the 'complexity of the world'.
Even 'Western' is a high level grouping, and can be broken down into sub headings like Empiricism, Rationalism, Idealism, Phenomenology, Pragmatism, Analytic philosophy, Existentialism etc. But I would claim that 'Western' is a valid, high level grouping.

Hi Stephen,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. As the author of "Heaven is Under the Feet of Governments," I appreciate your nuanced perspective on the terms 'Eastern' and 'Western' philosophy. Indeed, these broad categories can sometimes obscure the rich diversity within each tradition. In my book, I advocate for integrating Maqasid principles into modern governance, emphasizing values such as justice, compassion, and well-being, which transcend simplistic dualism.

While 'Western philosophy' as a term can be justified in tracing the development of ideas from Plato and Aristotle to contemporary thinkers, it's crucial to recognize that both 'Eastern' and 'Western' philosophies offer invaluable insights into governance and ethical frameworks. For example, Maqasid provides a holistic approach that can enhance modern governance by addressing not just material needs but also spiritual and collective well-being.

Thus, while it's practical to use 'Western philosophy' to describe a lineage of thought, we must remain vigilant against reductive dualism that overlook the complexity and interconnectedness of global philosophical traditions. By integrating diverse philosophical insights, we can develop governance models that are more inclusive and reflective of our shared humanity.

HEAVEN IS UNDER THE FEET OF GOVERNMENTS: STEERING NATIONS WITH MAQASID

@Stephen, How would you classify Islamic philosophy? Al Kindi, the father of Arab philosophy, was an Aristotelian. "Aristotle" and "philosophy" were almost synonymous terms in the Muslim world for centuries. It was Muslim philosophers and expositors, most notably ibn Rushd (Avicenna), who transmitted the writings of Aristotle to western Europe. No one, to my knowledge, ever calls Islamic philosophy "western philosophy." Yet the philosophers of the Islamic Golden Age surely had more in common with Aristotle than did, say, the 18th century British empiricists who explicitly rejected Aristotle. What then makes Hume "western" and ibn Rushd "eastern" (or at any rate "non-western")?

There's no question that Plato and Aristotle are part of the intellectual lineage of Locke, Kant, and all subsequent "western" philosophy, right up to the current day. However, that lineage cannot be said to be hermetically sealed off from "eastern" influences. Pyrrho of Elis, for example, was likely influenced by the gymnosophists of India. David Hume's "bundle theory" might have drawn inspiration from Zen. Arthur Schopenhauer was forthrightly influenced by Vedic philosophy.

The more I study the history of philosophy, the less accurate or useful these designations seem to me to be.

Islamic philosophy is a rich and multifaceted tradition that defies simple classification. While it's true that figures like Al-Kindi, known as the father of Arab philosophy, and Ibn Rushd (Averroes), who played a pivotal role in transmitting Aristotle’s works to the West, are often associated with Aristotelian thought, Islamic philosophy encompasses a broader spectrum. This includes not only Aristotelianism but also Neoplatonism, Sufism, and the unique contributions of Islamic theologians and jurists who integrated philosophical inquiry with Islamic doctrine.

In "Heaven is Under the Feet of Governments," I explore the integration of Maqasid principles with modern governance, highlighting how ethical principles derived from Islamic thought can inform just and compassionate governance. This framework demonstrates that Islamic philosophy is not confined to ancient Aristotelianism but continues to evolve, addressing contemporary issues with a holistic approach that includes spiritual, ethical, and rational dimensions.

The distinction between "Western" and "Eastern" philosophy often obscures the rich intercultural exchanges that have shaped philosophical traditions globally. While figures like David Hume and Arthur Schopenhauer are categorized as Western philosophers, their works were influenced by non-Western traditions, just as Islamic philosophers were influenced by Greek philosophy. The labels "Western" and "Eastern" are thus more reflective of historical and cultural contexts rather than the intrinsic nature of the philosophical ideas themselves.

In summary, Islamic philosophy is a dynamic and diverse tradition that cannot be neatly classified. It is a testament to the interconnectedness of human intellectual endeavors across cultures and eras. The philosophy of the Islamic Golden Age, and its contributions to global thought, underscores the need to move beyond simplistic geographical or cultural classifications to appreciate the universal quest for knowledge and understanding.

@Abdellatif, thank you, you make my point more fully and eloquently than I could.

@Skallagrimsen, Thank you for your kind words. Our shared vision is not just about theoretical discourse but about practical, transformative change. Together, we can foster justice, compassion, and well-being in our societies, ensuring that our governance structures truly reflect the highest ideals of humanity.

I would not attempt to classify Islamic philosophy, I'm sure it has many outside influences too, just like the so called "Western" philosophy. I'm also aware that Arab scholars copied down Aristotle's books and that is why we still have his words.
@Abdellatif, trying to persuade governments to act philosophically is probably almost impossible. Their job is the messy world of politics, which, if not the self interest of themselves (dictators), is the self interest of their nation.
My interest in philosophy is mainly in terms of understanding this amazing universe we live in and understanding ourselves. The interaction between philosophy, science, and episemology.

Stephen wrote: "I would not attempt to classify Islamic philosophy, I'm sure it has many outside influences too, just like the so called "Western" philosophy. I'm also aware that Arab scholars copied down Aristotl..."

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on philosophy and its integration into governance. I appreciate your perspective on the challenges of persuading governments to act philosophically, given their primary focus on the complex world of politics. However, my book, "Heaven is Under the Feet of Governments," aims to bridge this very gap by advocating for the integration of Maqasid principles with modern governance.

You mentioned the influence of external philosophical traditions on Islamic philosophy and the transmission of Aristotle's works through Arab scholars. This historical interplay indeed enriches the tapestry of global thought. Similarly, Maqasid is not confined to Islamic tradition alone; it encompasses universal values such as justice, compassion, and human dignity, which can enhance governance regardless of cultural or religious backgrounds.

Governments, while often embroiled in the pragmatics of political survival and national interests, have the potential to adopt these philosophical principles to foster a more just and equitable society. This is not about transforming politics into an abstract philosophical discourse but about grounding policy-making in ethical values that promote the common good.

Your interest in the interaction between philosophy, science, and epistemology aligns well with the objectives of Maqasid. By applying these principles, we can create governance systems that not only address material needs but also nurture intellectual and spiritual well-being, ultimately leading to a more holistic understanding of our place in this amazing universe.

I invite you to consider how integrating these values into governance could lead to a more compassionate and just society, where the messy world of politics is balanced by a commitment to ethical principles that serve the greater good.

Thank you for engaging in this meaningful dialogue. I look forward to exploring these ideas further with you.

Hi Abdellatif,
In terms of helping to ensure good governance, what about practical things like freedom of the press, separation of powers, checks and balances, democratic voting, and limits to terms. I know nothing is perfect, but a framework of transparency is a good start in ensuring the temptation of power is limited. Didn't Churchill say something like 'democracy is the worst system of government, apart from all the others'.

Stephen wrote: "Hi Abdellatif,
In terms of helping to ensure good governance, what about practical things like freedom of the press, separation of powers, checks and balances, democratic voting, and limits to term..."

Hi Stephen,

In my book "Heaven is Under the Feet of Governments," I emphasize the importance of integrating Maqasid principles with modern governance to create a framework that promotes justice, compassion, and well-being. Ensuring good governance involves practical mechanisms such as freedom of the press, separation of powers, checks and balances, democratic voting, and term limits.

1. Freedom of the Press: A free press is crucial for transparency and accountability. It acts as a watchdog, exposing corruption and holding those in power accountable. Without freedom of the press, the public cannot make informed decisions or hold their leaders accountable.


2. Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: These principles ensure that power is not concentrated in one branch of government, reducing the risk of abuse. Each branch—executive, legislative, and judicial—has distinct functions and can check the others, promoting a balance of power and preventing tyranny.


3. Democratic Voting and Term Limits: Democratic voting allows citizens to have a say in who governs them, fostering a sense of participation and ownership. Term limits prevent the entrenchment of power, encouraging fresh ideas and preventing the stagnation and corruption that can come with prolonged rule.


These mechanisms align with the Maqasid approach by ensuring that governance serves the common good, protects individual rights, and fosters justice and accountability. As Winston Churchill famously remarked, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." This acknowledges that while no system is perfect, democracy—with its inherent checks and balances—provides a robust framework for good governance.

Integrating these practical measures with the ethical and moral guidance of Maqasid can help create a governance system that not only functions effectively but also upholds the values of justice, compassion, and the well-being of all citizens.

Skallagrimsen wrote: "@Feliks: Is your claim that only the west developed philosophy?"

I'll sidestep that question and put it like this. In practical terms, western universities can only incorporate the study of western thought into their school curriculae, and still call it, 'philosophy'. They're just not going to lump East\West together. Instead, students may pursue degrees in Oriental Studies, Asian Studies, or any of the other fields I cited above. There's no ill-will behind this. It's simply the way our hemisphere is organized.

@Feliks, The question with which I started this thread was less about the western university system specifically than philosophy in general. Not everyone who studies or applies philosophy does so within the ambit of academia (for example, myself). At any rate, where and how would you delineate "the west"?

Feliks wrote: "Skallagrimsen wrote: "@Feliks: Is your claim that only the west developed philosophy?"

I'll sidestep that question and put it like this. In practical terms, western universities can only incorpora..."

This is disheartening because philosophy is supposed to be the love of knowledge, so all knowledge should be examined through the same lens. Relegating all eastern philosophy as "Asian studies" as if they are studying birds or something, is just weird and outdated. It implies that they are studying something foreign or exotic. It's 2024 already! These aren't even new ideas anymore.

I understand the closest translation of 'philosohy/love of wisdom' is 'seeing' as in seeing true reality...

Skallagrimsen wrote: "Is it useful or meaningful to divide philosophy into "Western" and "Eastern" philosophy? Or, as I would argue, is this bifurcation of philosophical thought misleading, arbitrary, and provincial?"

I feel the phrase 'Western philosophy' may be justified since philosophers often self-identify as Western. It's main characteristic is that it does not study all of philosophy but omits the study of the Perennial philosophy. As Amrit notes, in this day and age this is poor scholarship.

The phrase 'Eastern philosophy' is different and seems more or less meaningless except as a geographical category. I always avoid using it. The significant distinction is between dualism and non-dualism, or between mainstream Western philosophy and the Perennial philosophy. But both approaches can be found in the East and the West.

To divide philosophy up in this way is irrational, and it is no surprise that it leads to the stagnation of Western university philosophy and widespread claims that it is dead. As you suggest it's misleading, arbitrary and provincial, and also irrational, perverse and crippling. I believe this is demonstrable and not a matter of opinion.

Amrit wrote: "This is because philosophy is supposed to be the love of knowledge, ..."

Says who? Take for instance, Analytical Philosophy. It would be purely opinionizing to state that any student or professional academic pursuing this difficult, cerebral regimen does so for the sake of sentimental or emotional motives.

Do all students who enroll in Asian Studies do so from the motive of 'love'? Is everyone who is ever interested in Asian traditions, keen on that topic because they secretly have 'love' on their mind?

Sounds like something you perhaps gained from TV or movies.

In the case of any given individual, their motivation might be this, or might not be that, or might be a hundred other things. No one answer applies to all, for such a question.

Amrit wrote: "so all knowledge should be examined through the same lens...."

But why specifically, would that be? Is everyone interested in Thought, automatically motivated by 'Love'? You're advancing quite a rigid (& psychological) definition here.

Ask it another way: by what axiom does your second statement follow your first? Especially since your first statement was an opinion?

Two things which look the same are not the same. Are you going so far as to insist that what one human loves, another human must also love? "If I love something, how is it possible that you do not also love it?"

Would you suggest any of this as a basis for rational decision-making among college administrators?

Amrit wrote: "Relegating all philosophy as "Asian studies" as if they are studying birds or something..."

There is still a sharp divide between mysticism and philosophy. And there always should be. Admittedly, in 'modern' times (an age of increasing irrationality and unreason) the line gets muddled.

But clearly --in any western college campus --it would be bad practice to mix undisciplined, trendy, wifty, superstitious California flakiness in alongside more rigorous, more traditional academia.

Amrit wrote: " is just weird and outdated..."

Pyramid Power, crystals, Ouija boards, transcendental meditation, astral projection, seances ...all belong somewhere else than a western philosophy department.

Western philosophy --like the other 'soft' social sciences --has been trying to shed such boutique, pseudo-scientific fads for decades now.

This contention is neither 'weird' nor 'outdated' at all. It is an ongoing battle in western universities; its an important struggle in a West dominated by hard sciences.

Why important to uphold? Because at the very least, mixing East & West together jeopardizes funding and support. It would affect people's career paths and job opportunities.

Feliks wrote: "
Amrit wrote: "This is because philosophy is supposed to be the love of knowledge, ..."


Says who? Take for instance, Analytical Philosophy. It would be purely opinionizing to state that any stude..."

Perhaps you should check out the the etymology of 'philosophy'.

I'll let Amrit fight his own battles but really, you ought to at least study mysticism a little before making your comments. They give away your reluctance to do so.

Peter wrote: "Perhaps you should check out the the etymology of 'philosophy'..."

You think so, huh? Then perhaps you ought to bear in mind that modern society rarely operates any more, from dusty textbooks, or 'dictionary definitions'.

'Encyclopedia entries' are not how the world actually functions.

Peter wrote: "...but really, you ought to at least study a little before making your comments...."

Sheeesh. I attended school probably longer than you've had a driver's license.

Peter wrote: "I'll let Amrit fight his own battles...."

I doubt he will; and that goes for you too. Take his place if you wanna throw your weight around; I really don't care. I'll stand behind any remark I make on any website, any time, any day.

And twice, in Philadelphia.

Peter wrote: "They give away your reluctance to do so...."

Match your degree --your career --your salary --your carbon footprint --or even your Goodreads bookshelf --against mine, and you'll come up short on all counts.

I say this --which I otherwise wouldn't --because I see you're including ridiculous and snide insinuations now. All without any grounds whatsoever for making this discussion 'personal'.

But for the record, (and to the attention of the moderators) the first technical fouls here are all yours. It hasn't been a 'battle' at all so far, unless you choose to make it one.

Feliks wrote: "

You think so, huh? Then perhaps you ought to bear in mind that modern society rarely operates any more, from du..."

Really? This is how you approach these topics? Are you not even slightly interested?

Peter wrote: "This is how you approach these topics?..."

Treating just this topic --without conflating in, any other assumptions-- the OP asked a fairly straightforward, 'real-world' question. My response --no matter how casually I phrased each specific reply --leaned the same way.

Nothing I stated, would be found un-corroborated by a visit to any US college campus and raising the question with a faculty member. I spent a lon-n-n-n-g time in the groves-of-academe; so I know whereof I speak.

Of course, there's a lot in Heaven and Earth which I don't know --but this question was not a stumper. I replied to the OP honestly, from experience. Easy-p'easy.

Now, there's lots of way to argue a point when one has a vested interest. For example, if you want to stoop (I consider it stooping) to call someone out with a dictionary def. That's little better than chivvying someone over spelling, or grammar, or punctuation. In my opinion.

Me, I don't care about 'scoring points' in a hum-drum internet backwater like Goodreads Groups. I have no ulterior motive in this whole thread. I only ever speak from what I know can be substantiated. What else should one do? The internet's not a classroom. It's more like a poolroom. Not a place to quest for Truth.

In sum: the guy asked a question, I happened to have an insight on what he asked, and I supplied that insight. It's real-world intel I gave him. Anyone trying to mix together East/West coursework ...sure, anything's possible ...but the prospects are dim. I explained why. Universities dislike the idea, and with good reason.

Feliks wrote: "
Peter wrote: "This is how you approach these topics?..."


Treating just this topic --without conflating in, any other assumptions-- the OP asked a fairly straightforward, 'real-world' question. M..."

What you say here is entirely and quite obviously at odds with your previous posts. I've never before come across anyone with your attitude so I'm a bit nonplussed. I think I'll just leave you to it.

A polite gentleman is well-met. No ill-will at all, on my part. Let's walk easy. The street's wide enough for two fine men to pass by with grace. 'Fins', ... as they used to say in Henry's time.

p.s. 'nonplussed' is a very rich vocab word ...I salut

There is the Kyoto School which attempts to bridge the cultural divide, but their works are largely untranslated and under-appreciated. Their grounding is largely Mahayana philosophy and Post-Hegelian authors such as Stirner, Nietzsche, Heidegger.

Kamakana wrote: "there is the contention western philosophy is always, somehow, concerned with 'being': eastern philosophy with 'emptiness' ,so this divide is real, not parochial, and Nishida (Japanese philosopher)..."

Except, there is western philosophy that accepts paradox, even asking for new ways of approaching the world, especially Post-Hegel; being is meaningless, static-meaning or static-morality itself, also meaningless & indiscernible. If read literally, it creates a dialectical of becoming, if read allegorically, the dialectical is itself another illusioned+partitioned 'being' amidst becoming and unfolding, interpenetrated and causal. Baudrillard's rhizomic interactions also harkening on this concept.

Feliks wrote: "
Amrit wrote: "This is because philosophy is supposed to be the love of knowledge, ..."


Says who? Take for instance, Analytical Philosophy. It would be purely opinionizing to state that any stude..."

Your self belief to know eastern philosophy baffles me, more so the arguments that it is never rigorous.There is a great deal of literature from Jonardon Ganeri,Nirmalya Ghosh,Mark Sideritis ,Matilal etc in fields of language and epistemology ,particularly the branch that developed in east. Ganeri has actively participated with his works in philosophy of mind that somewhat transcend the barrier.Another person that I remember doing very good work is Arindam Chakrabarti and his book Realism interlinked is a landmark in this regard.

The second thing I do not understand is on what basis are you claiming philosophy as 'soft' social sciences ? Why should philosophy prescribe to your soft science part? Even most analytics(except the positivists) do not claim that.